Friday, February 26, 2016

WATERBURY CT - A PIT BULL ALLOWED BY ITS OWNER TO RUN LOOSE AT A CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX ATTACKED A CONTRACT WORKER - THE CASE WENT TO COURT BUT THE JUDGEMENT PROOF SCUM WAS A NO-SHOW

Talal Garmakani sits on the front porch of a home on Eastern Avenue after he was bitten in the back of the thigh by a pit bull named MajorTalal Garmakani v. Hollister Munn and Bunker Hill Properties LLC:

A man injured in a pit bull attack at a condominium complex has been awarded more than $76,000 by a judge in Waterbury. Talal Garmakani was a self-employed contractor specializing in roofing and remodeling. He and a couple other workers were doing work at the Bunker Hill Woods condo complex in Waterbury. The complex was owned by Bunker Hill Properties LLC.

Garmakani's lawyer, David Compagnone, of the Kaloidis Law Firm in Waterbury, said his client was working on the property at around 2 p.m. on Sept. 23, 2013, when a PIT BULL named Major came around a corner of the building "and started to get aggressive with him." Compagnone said the dog jumped on him and bit his left thigh and knocked him backward onto the ground. The fall hurt his right shoulder, his neck and back.

An ambulance came to the scene and took Garmakani to Waterbury Hospital, where he underwent a series of rabies shots. Garmakani later had an MRI at the Greater Waterbury Imaging Center. The shoulder injury turned out to be Garmakani's worst injury, as the MRI revealed a rotator cuff tear. He now has limited range of motion in that arm. Doctors have said surgery is needed, but Garmakani has not scheduled the operation because he lacks health insurance, Compagnone said. "The knocking backwards is what really messed up his shoulder," the attorney said.

Garmakani was treated at Rosa Chiropractic Center for his back injury. Garmakani has been unable to work. He has a small permanent scar on his left thigh from the dog bite. Garmakani sued the property ownership for negligence and brought claims against the dog's owner, Hollister Munn, for negligence and recklessness. According to the lawsuit, Munn used to let the dog, who had a "vicious propensity," roam free on the condo property.

Compagnone said the dog owner's unit was nowhere near the part of the condo complex where his client was attacked. Compagnone argued that the condo complex's management was aware that the dog ran around loose on the property and did nothing about it.

Compagnone said the condo complex reached a settlement with Garmakani before trial. The settlement terms were confidential, the lawyer said. Meanwhile, Munn never responded to the lawsuit. Eventually, the judge entered a default judgement in September 2014. The case proceeded to a hearing on damages in January in Waterbury Superior Court.

Garmakani, who only speaks spanish, testified with the help of an interpreter, said Compagnone. No one appeared for the defendant at the hearing. Judge Barbara Brazzel-Massero awarded $16,100 in economic damages and $60,000 in noneconomic damages for a total of $76,100. The judge awarded an additional $588 for litigation costs.

Despite the award, Compagnone doesn't expect to recover the damages from the no-show defendant dog owner. "This is going to likely be an uncollectable judgement," said Compagnone. Garmakani was able to get some compensation from the landlord, which was helpful."

As far as the dog that bit Garmakani, Compagnane is unsure whatever happened to it. "I believe the dog was put in quarantine because police arrived and called dog control, but I don't know if they ever put the dog down or whatever happened," said Compagnone.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.